One of the most interesting part of the article is, "There's a potentially dangerous drug out there of which you should be made aware. It can cause damage to the gastrointestinal system (gastric mucosal bleeding) and lead to ulcers even when used at very low dosages. This drug was implicated in death by medical examiners 101 times in 1998 and led to 12,815 hospital visits in that same year. In short, this stuff could kill you… and you probably have some in your medicine cabinet right now! The name of this potential killer? Aspirin."

I'm sure that wold be made illegal to if it gave people an 'unfair' advantage.

Nothing in life is fair. If we were all created equal, I'd be making a few million a year playing in the National Football League...doing Nike commercials.

So, it is UNfair that I don't have the right genetics to play pro ball.

ironmaiden708 wrote:
I'm sure that wold be made illegal to if it gave people an 'unfair' advantage.

Nothing in life is fair. If we were all created equal, I'd be making a few million a year playing in the National Football League...doing Nike commercials.

So, it is UNfair that I don't have the right genetics to play pro ball.

It is UNfair that my parents weren't rich.

I'd rather inherit my money than work for it.

Kenny Croxdale

I think this is a very good point. This is similar to what stumps me about the 'steroids in sport' debate.

I think I first started thinking about this after reading a TC article on T-nation.

Basically, how do you define 'performance enhancement'?

There are many things that enhance an athletes performance, as TC mentioned (i've not found the article yet), even a cup of coffee can enhance performance.

For example, you have "Athlete A" and "Athlete B". Imagine that Athlete A is established with good sponsors etc and can easily afford every supplement under the sun... But Athlete B is an up-and-comer, scraping by just to compete, and can barely afford any supplements at all. So, athlete A is competing against athlete B with the 'advantage' of lot's of good performance enhancing supplements.

Would athlete A have a fair, or unfair advantage?

An obvious answer is - "fair" simply because athlete A isn't doing anything wrong, or illegal. But everyone on this forum should know that a smart choice of various legal supplements can make a significant difference to performance.

I'm not saying i'm 'pro steroids', just some food for thought....

The extremely genetically disadvantaged people out their have my sympathy, too. They have a disadvantage to most people which can't be overcome because they would be breaking the law. And the law has been 'wrong' before, certainly over here anyway, it's always subject to change. not that i think there's a chance in hell steroids would be legalised but clearly there's people who think that the law is the 'be all and end all'. As it turns out, the law or the goverment don't actually seem to know much about steroids.

But on the other side of the fence, if steroids were legal, these genetically disadvantaged guys are still going to be faced with the same problem? Unless they can take more than the the genetically gifted, or the genetically gifted aren't aloud to take any (or maybe I have naive understanding of how they work).

Which goes back to TC's theory that maybe their should be a certain amount of Test that everyone is aloud. So if you happen to fall short on test levels, then you go off to the docs and even the score. Similarly, if you already have a high level of Test, you wouldn't be able to get any (in a very ideal world), so your on a more level playing field (in theory).

One thing I do agree on 100% is that the debate could actually go on forever, as has already been said.

Theoretically, anything you put in your mouth that help you to increase performance is a "performance enhancement" substance...whey protein, creatine, etc.

A few years ago, the NCAA's policies included that NO university would be allowed to provide creatine and protein to their athletes.

That because some universities/colleges did not have the monies to provide their athletes with these substances.

The NCAA purpose was to "Level The Playing Field" by mandating NO university could provide these supplements.

The NCAA's stance on this was obsurd.

There are many things that enhance an athletes performance, as TC mentioned (i've not found the article yet), even a cup of coffee can enhance performance.

For example, you have "Athlete A" and "Athlete B". Imagine that Athlete A is established with good sponsors etc and can easily afford every supplement under the sun... But Athlete B is an up-and-comer, scraping by just to compete, and can barely afford any supplements at all. So, athlete A is competing against athlete B with the 'advantage' of lot's of good performance enhancing supplements.

Would athlete A have a fair, or unfair advantage?

Yes, athlete A does have an unfair advantage...but "Life is NOT fair." If it was you and I would be playing in the NFL, NBA, etx.

But on the other side of the fence, if steroids were legal, these genetically disadvantaged guys are still going to be faced with the same problem? Unless they can take more than the the genetically gifted, or the genetically gifted aren't aloud to take any (or maybe I have naive understanding of how they work).

If you really want be fair, give steriods to the less gifted so that they can play with the elite athletes. Don't allow the elite athletes to take them.

However, no matter how fast or strong an "average" athlete get on steriods, they will never get to the elite athletes level.

The solution then is the "Tanaya Harding" approach. Prior to the game, the elite athlete need to be hig in the leg with a baseball bat.

In that way, you are getting closer to thing being fair.

The best method is to "pick the right parents." Inso doing, you are assured of being an elite athlete.

TimD wrote:Kenny wrote
It reminds me of when Adlai Stevenson was running for President. A lady told him "All the thinking people are behind you."

Stevenson replied, I agree. However, I need a majority to win.
End

Good point Kenny. I'm still laughing, but I think only you, Stephen and myself even know who Adlai Stephenson was.

I'm reluctant to discuss politics here, but I read this today from George Will:

When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, "Yes, but I need to win a majority." When another supporter told Stevenson, "You educated the people through your campaign," Stevenson replied, "But a lot of people flunked the course." Michael Barone, in "Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan," wrote: "It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind." Barone added: "Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture -- the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting."

Many conservative "thinkers" look down on people too - it's easier to dismiss someone who disagrees with you as uninformed than admit that he might have a point.

Steroids are not illegal. They are a schedule 3 controlled substance. They are not as tightly controlled schedule 2, which includes drugs like narcotic pain killers and amphetamines like the methylphenidate I take for ADD. The schedule 3 is still fairly tightly controlled though. It's not like 4 and 5 where nobody really cares.

I was told that if your caught with steroids on your person its a felony offense? Why was steroids black balled like that? Everyone I have spoken to about them mentions them as productive but use with caution. Long story short I feel they should be like creatine and all the other supplements. Readily available and with information that is all fact.

Steroids may be relatively safe when prescribed by doctors, and taken as directed (under a doctors supervision). But making them available over-the-counter is another matter entirely. This would lead to all sorts of problems.

A few years ago, the NCAA's policies included that NO university would be allowed to provide creatine and protein to their athletes.

I have no other way to say this, that is just retarded. Your not doing anything by not providing them with protein and creatine. No team will get prevented from winning a game or winning a superbowl by not taking protein. Same with creatine. Chances are you have a great sprinter no matter if they are on creatine or not so it is insignificant banning those products. Also they plainly have no solid reason to ban it, no data, just a bunch of irrational speculations.

lmao ok....kpj well on my next trip to thailand I'll get me and your some roids and the cream !! haha jk I would consider doing them if there wasnt such misinformation. Also all the negativity from normal people that arent into sports weight training or anything seem to have the worst opinions.